Jan. 20 Readers' letters: Gun control, gun control and more gun control

From Mercury News readers

Posted:
01/18/2013 10:50:40 PM PST

Updated:
01/18/2013 10:50:40 PM PST

'Unreasonable people' fits description of NRA

I'm glad gun advocate Dennis Lowe is interested in "dispelling half-truths by unreasonable people" (Letters, Jan. 18). He can start with his own description of the NRA as a group that is only interested in promoting the "responsible" use of firearms. After all, can an organization that opposes background checks, supports gun purchases by those on terrorist watch lists, and thinks more guns in both schools and bars is a great idea really be called "responsible"? Gun control may not be the only answer, but it is certainly part of the answer and not one promoted only by "unreasonable people." If Lowe thinks that the proper response to the slaughter of 20 first-graders with a military-style weapon is to get tough on video games, but do nothing about guns, maybe he should re-examine his definition of "unreasonable."

Rachel Sumi

San Jose

Real crime isn't gun violence, but U.S. debt

I am certainly thankful for President Obama taking the initiative to strengthen our gun laws to protect our children. But one curious statistic seemed to be missing in the conversation. If Chicago has all these gun-control laws on the books, they should be the safest city in America. Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and the rest of the Democrats don't seem to want to face the fact that "gun laws" do not stop bad guys from killing.

Advertisement

How many of the gun murders in United States have been committed by NRA members? But the NRA is blamed for the all of the problems associated with guns. Meanwhile, every man, woman and child in America owes thousands more in national debt since Obama took office. Now that is the real crime.

Stan Sinclear

San Jose

Bush laid foundation for fall of economy

Victor Davis Hanson (Opinion, Jan. 18) is quoted as saying, "In his first term, Obama has added more than $5 trillion to the national debt, borrowing more in four years than Bush did in eight." Doesn't Hanson remember that George W. Bush got us into two unfunded wars, in addition to cutting taxes and allowing Wall Street to exploit numerous loopholes, thereby leaving our economy on the brink of collapse, while the superwealthy stashed their windfall profits in offshore accounts? What did anybody else with a lick of sense expect?

Refugio Moreno

San Jose

Secrets of 'fracking fluids' must be studied

The problem with Jason Marshall's letter (Letters, Jan. 17) about extracting oil from the Monterey Shale is that the state will require a website disclosure of "fracking fluids," but the secret fluids would only be disclosed " ... in the event of a spill or release." First, our scientists should study these "trade secret" fluids to see if they are toxins. Why wait until it's too late to discover that? Why can't these companies license the use of their secret formulas if they should escape the clutches of the scientists? If they are nontoxic, they could be worth a lot of money. We are talking about the water safety of Californians.

David Eisbach

San Jose

City rightly says 'no' to building on the bay

As a resident of Redwood City, I am pleased to see that it is implementing its award-winning and community-driven general plan in a way consistent with the plan's mandates -- making our downtown a higher-density, pedestrian-friendly one that is attractive to new residents, local businesses, and longtime community members. A revitalized downtown with housing near public transport hubs and within existing infrastructure is where Redwood City should continue to focus its efforts. Building out on the salt ponds stands in direct opposition to this and does not represent the community's new vision for responsible growth. Redwood City's message is loud and clear -- any new plan Cargill and DMB might propose for building on the bay will be a nonstarter.

Nancy Arbuckle

Redwood City

Gun owners should have to pass test first

Assault weapon owner Brett Cashman (Letters, Jan. 14) does have legitimate reasons to bear such arms, just like I have legitimate reasons to teach or drive a car. Others have legitimate reasons to sell stocks, insurance, homes, or food. The only difference is that, in most cases, the others need to pass a test and/or possess a license. Is it too much to ask that those who own mass-killing machines jump through analogous hoops?

Mark Allendorf

San Mateo

Wish to change Second Amendment? Amend it

The Second Amendment to the Constitution says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What part of "shall not be infringed" is not clear? If Americans believe that gun controls are needed, there is only one legal way to restrict arms ownership: Amend the Constitution.

Neither a presidential decree, judicial activism, nor congressional legislation is the solution. It took less than four months in 1971 to pass the 26th Amendment giving 18-year-olds the right to vote. Why aren't the president, the media or the many clamoring voices calling for a constitutional amendment? Probably because they know that Americans don't want to surrender one more of our freedoms.